http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
We should keep in mind that Oakland did have a long term offer on the table for Giambi and that he would have stayed in Oakland had he been willing to waive the no-trade clause. I suspect that the offer was more a product of Oakland ownership than Billy Beane, but Beane and Ricciardi both realize the value of Giambi/Delgado type hitters.

Sure, there are better ways to spend $19 million, but you are getting value for your money. Paying for superstars doesn't cripple a team financially, paying for mediocrity does.

Delgado is looking at a much different market than Giambi, he's comfortable in Toronto, and this is a team that should be in contention soon. Plus, he's already made a truckload of money. I wouldn't be surprised to see him come back at a discount.

I hope the organization hasn't soured on Phelps. For all of his struggles, his OBP is still .348. He's drawing almost one walk per 10 AB, and he gets plunked frequently. I'd hate to see a good half-season of Reed Johnson shuffle Phelps out of the team's plans.

And while it's cute that Griffin is trying to show he's down with the "Beane-heads", he completely misses the point by quoting Phelps strikeouts as an anti-JP number. You can draw walks and get on base all the time, and STILL strike out a lot. See Babe Ruth, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Jim Thome, et al.

Here's a thought -- maybe Josh is the one on his way out the door. He'd make a far more attractive trade target than Catalanotto, who was non-tendered last winter and doesn't appear to be regarded around the league as highly as he should be. Phelps is young, powerful and cheap, and if someone wants to try to put him back behind the plate, so much the better. Packaging Phelps with Lidle or Escobar would make a lot of teams sit up straight in a hurry.

For the balance of this year, they could go with Catalanotto-Wells-Kielty in the outfield -- very serviceable -- while Reed Johnson could spell Cat two or three nights a week, pushing him to DH or onto the bench. That leaves a DH or outfield slot open for four to five nights a week. Who fills it? Jayson Werth is always a possibility -- his bat is really coming around, as he's up to .284/.333/.486 at Syracuse after a brutal start. But for the balance of this year -- and you may think I'm crazy for suggesting this -- I say Simon Pond, the iron-gloved minor-league slugger who was born to DH. He hit .338/.440/.513 in 225+ ABs in New Haven and is hitting .316/.361/.544 in 100+ ABs at Syracuse so far -- between them, that works out to a major-league EqA of .268, which is plenty serviceable, especially for the league minimum. And who knows, he may even continue to perform above expectations. In any event, the team will need to find out sooner or later if Pond can help them at the big-league level.

For 2004, I say keep Catalanotto around. IIRC, Cat can be taken to arbitration this winter, and even if his salary triples, he'd still be far cheaper than Shannon Stewart was. And since Frank seems to like it in Toronto, they may be able to work out a nice one-year deal without rancour. I think Cat is important to this team: with Stewart gone, he's the best full-time leadoff option available (spunky as he is, I still don't think Reed Johnson is a full-time player). Wells is carved in stone, and Kielty is still a keeper at this point, while Gabe Gross and Alexis Rios are now one year closer to the major leagues. If either of them is ready by mid-summer, Cat can go to DH virtually full-time, or be dealt to a contender that needs a bat. As for the DH slot itself, even I don't think Simon Pond is the long-term answer there. But nobody in baseball is better at acquiring undervalued bats than JP Ricciardi; if he needs to find himself a DH, he can do it. Also, don't forget John-Ford Griffin, who should be ready for the bigs full-time by 2005, when Delgado will be gone. And there's still Jayson Werth.

All of this to say, there are options for the Blue Jays that don't include Josh Phelps. I'm not anxious to dump him -- I think he's at least Richie Sexson Lite, and could be more than that -- but the club has a lot of attractive bats that are 12 to 18 months away from the majors, and Josh is the most one-dimensional of them. This club needs a #2 starter like a baby needs a diaper -- if Phelps can bring one in, I say adios, amigo.

Jim, Josh Phelps is not Babe Ruth. High strikeouts can be tolerated if the walks are there, at something approximating a 1:1 ratio (2:3 tops). But 1:3 -- and Josh is even worse than that at the moment -- is a sign of poor plate discipline and a flawed approach at the plate, if the power numbers aren't there.

The strikeout is a negative "true outcome," so it places a drag on OPS -- if the ball's in play, anything can happen. I don't like it when mediocre players with high strikeouts get defended as being "picked on." It's possible to be valuable with 76 K's in 252 AB, but not if you have 23 walks and .437 slugging. Last year's Josh, with vastly superior power, was valuable despite a similar BB/K rate. To me, though even if strikeouts can be acceptable, it does not follow that they're never worth monitoring as a hitter's statistic.

If you're not hitting for big-time power, or getting on base a ton, you need a ridiculously high balls-in-play average to be successful -- like the Jose Hernandez of 2002, who hit .406 on balls in play. To me, that's probably reflective of luck, as evidenced by this year and every other year in Jose's crappy career.

http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
I wasn't suggesting a comparison between Ruth and Phelps. (Hmmm. The Joshbino?) My point was that Griffin holds up Phelps strikeouts as a reason he would fall out of favour with Jays management, which simply isn't true.

Griffin should have, as you did, pointed to Phelps reduced power numbers as the source of his disappointing season.

I agree that Cat should be moved this year, in a package with LIDLE (I still think we should be keeping Escobar). That leaves Kielty-Wells-Johnson in the outfield and Delgado-Phelps at 1B DH and Werth and Howie off the bench. Outside of Wells, whoever our of Phelps-Rios-Gross , I think, should be moved by next year's trade deadline for a young, legitimate no. 2 (Like Vazquez, Santana etc...). And I think the pen has real keepers in Kershner and Aquilino. Plus Hendrickson or Thurman. Good Start. If Politte can recover, I think that's three above average arms for the pen and I think Acevedo and possibly Miller would be servicable. One or two more above average bullpen arms would be perfect. Halladay-Trade/FA Guy-Escobar-Arnold-Thurman/Hendrickson(I've had faith in him since before the CG SHO in the Bronx) and I think we're starting to look pretty good for 2005-06.

I'd hate to see the Jays give up on Josh Phelps. His OPS is only eight points lower than Catalanotto's, and his OBP is actually significantly higher (.348 to .332). I'd like to see if Mike Barnett can fix the holes in Phelps's swing, and if Phelps can learn to adjust, before dumping him. It's not Josh's fault that he has the Baseball Prospectus cover jinx working against him. :-)

Having said that, if the Jays can trade him for a top starter, I'd do it. The Jays have an armada (flotilla? battalion?) of hitters steaming its way through the minors, and there's always a possibility that they might be able to keep Delgado.

We musn't forget that Phelps is still relatively inexperienced at this level. Nevertheless, he has drawn walks in the minors, and has improved his walk rate this year. There are plenty of young power hitters with worse K/W ratios.

In my opinion, it would be foolish to trade Phelps now unless you are going to be getting 2 super young pitchers (along the lines of Harden/Santana). That's not going to happen.

Phelps has the potential to be a great hitter. I don't think you ever trade that away.

Don't call it an armada -- you'll doom them!

http://economics.about.com
Speaking of Kielty, I was listening to the Yankees radio broadcast for an inning or two last night, and the annoucers were pretty much of the opinion that the Jays practically stole him from the Twins. They were going on about what a all-around good player he is and how badly Stewart is defensively. I thought I was listening to Coach. :)

RE: Phelps. I know he'd valuable on the open market, but could you get enough for him to make it worthwhile to trade him? My guess would be no, but I didn't think they'd get so much for Stewart. I can't imagine JP is actively shopping Phelps, but you never know. Personally I think the team is on the right path and doesn't need to do anything drastic. If someone (the Cubs?) really wanted Cat, of course you'd have to listen, but given how nobody wanted him in the off-season, you wonder how much he'd fetch (GMs don't like to admit they made a mistake). You'd think Myers and Bordick would be useful to quite a few teams, but if you're only going to get a C-level prospect back, why bother?

With Arnold and Thurman coming up next year and more on the way, I think the worst thing the Jays could do is overpay for a bunch of good (but not great) pitchers. The worst deals you can make are always the ones where you feel like you're forced to make a move and I think JP is far too smart to fall into that trap.

At .520, the team is right where it's supposed to be this year. The plan is working great so far, so I don't see a need to panic.

Mike

I agree with Dave. Phelps should only be traded if he's bringing back a top pitcher.

The JP & Co have shown the ability to find players like Johnson and F-Cat. Players with good OBP and modest slugging are a lot easier to come by than cheap power hitters. Those are the players you should be collecting.

I agree with Dave and Pistol. Phelps (or Rios or Gross or Griffin or...) can be traded, it isn't a neccesity by any means like Stewart seemed to become, but only for a major return like Santana or Harden(I think there's a better chance of trading for Pedro than Harden right now, though ;-) )

Hasn't Phelps always struggled at each new level, only to eventually bust out in a big way? It seems like it would be a shame to trade him now, before finding out what his true ability level is. He's been right around an 800 OPS all season, and unlike Cat, or Kielty for that matter, he has the upside to get that up to 900 or so. I doubt that he'll hit like Delgado, but he has the potential to be a great power threat.

Compare these two lines:

2002 TOR 159 608 87 167 34 4 23 100 27 85 9 4 .275 .305 .457 .762

2003 TOR 72 252 39 66 12 1 10 32 23 76 1 2 .262 .348 .437 .785

First is Vernon last year, second is Josh this year. Of course Vernon has the advantage of being a fabulous defensive outfielder, while Josh is a 1B/DH type, but those lines are very similar (adjusting for the differences in playing time of course). I say give Josh the AB's.

I would have to say that I'm hoping JP can make a deal with Brian Sabean. The Giants are going to need a starting pitcher for the stretch drive. I would gladly take Ainsworth and/or a pitching prospect off their hands for Escobar or Lidle.

I'm also not opposed to dealing Phelps--I'm quite appreciative of Cat's contributions at a modest price--if a top-notch pitcher can be had.

Yes, trade Phelps. Send Hudson down to AAA while you're at it.

With Halladay pitching tonight, I'd rather have Vernon and Reed in the outfield, and an infield of Hinske, Woodward, Hudson, Catalanotto and Kielty. ;)

Phelps would have to bring back one amazing pitcher for me to think that's a good idea to trade him. Sure, his current bb/k ratio is poor at 0.30 but he's got a few things going for him:

1) Since turning pro, he's consistently had a high average on balls in play. In the last four years, he's had 440, 396, 388 and 440 BIP averages (majors and minors combined). This year he's at 375. I can't chalk that up to luck alone.
2) He has shown better walk rates in the minors and should revert back to that performance with experience.
3) Even if he doesn't improve, players have succeeded despite poor bb/k ratios, eg. Garret Anderson (0.36 in 2003), Alfonso Soriano (0.33), Juan Gonzalez (0.19) and Frank Catalanotto (0.37).
4) His power is the epitome of prodigious.
5) He's hella-smart.
6) He's only 25.

Granted, he's not as multi-dimensional as some players, but he's cheap, he's likely to get better and his trade value is not as high as it could be. You don't sell stocks when their perceived value is lower than where you know it will climb to in the future.

We should keep in mind that Oakland did have a long term offer on the table for Giambi and that he would have stayed in Oakland had he been willing to waive the no-trade clause. I suspect that the offer was more a product of Oakland ownership than Billy Beane, but Beane and Ricciardi both realize the value of Giambi/Delgado type hitters.

As the resident A's "expert," I must respectfully disagree with this. Giambi had no intention of staying with the club. The A's knew this, Giambi knew this -- but the fans didn't. Ergo, to spin the situation in their favor, the A's made a generous offer to Jason, knowing he wouldn't accept regardless of the no-trade offer (which they subsequently put in, but, as we know, to no avail). It's a bit like asking your long-distance female lover to move in with you: you are 99 percent sure she won't take the offer, but it's the "right thing" to say, as it will keep you in the sack a bit longer.

Obviously Beane and Ricciardi value the Giambi/Delgado-type hitter; Giambi has been the only Athletic farm-hand of the last six years to exhibit the power/patience mantra with above-average success in the majors. But to say they value spending between 30-40 percent of their payroll on them is another matter. It is difficult to blame them, really, but I still miss Jason in the heart of that A's lineup; he just doesn't give away at-bats like so many of the current A's.

I should add that the A's would have been pleased if Jason signed; but they knew he wouldn't, so to placate the fans they turned the blame on Jason, which is understandable. And then Jason turned his wrath on the A's, which is also understandable.

Let's hope there's less venom if/when Delgado starts to re-negotiate.

With Halladay pitching tonight, I'd rather have Vernon and Reed in the outfield, and an infield of Hinske, Woodward, Hudson, Catalanotto and Kielty. ;)

Sounds good to me!

I don't mean to give up on Phelps and ship him out now. Next year's trade deadline is the time frame I'm talking about. I didn't even only call for him to be dealt, but for whomever out of him and the current crop of prospects can bring in the major pitcher. I just don't think Free Agency is the way to go and to get quality, you ahve to give up quality. If one of them is on the brink of superstardom, trade the second best guy. Out offense is set regardless of their development. I agree he should be playing 5 days a week right now and that he will improve. If he plays next year like we expected this year, then by all means keep him. If not, and he can bring in a legit no. 2 or 1A, then go for it. If he looks like he's gonna settle in as a good power hitter, but noting special, we still have Rios and Gross and Griffin etc. to take his spot.

Some clarification may be in order. I'm not advocating giving up on Josh Phelps -- as I said -- or discounting his potential. Phelps would make an ideal cleanup hitter for the post-Delgado Jays. I am saying that if he can bring back a really good starter, in combination with other players, the team shouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger. Power-hitting youngsters may be uncommon commodities, but top starters are downright rare, and this team badly needs them. We've seen this year how close the Jays are to actual contention -- and, thanks to the state of their pitching, how far away. A great starter to reinforce Halladay would be worth his weight in gold to this club. Josh may not be able to pry loose that kind of prize, and if he can't, then of course you hold on to him. But if he's the key to acquiring that kind of pitcher, then Toronto has plenty more where he came from, all two years or fewer away.

I don't see anyone in the Jays minor leagues with the kind of power potential Phelps showed at AA and AAA. Maybe Quiroz. They do have a good~great pitching prospect or 2 at every level now, which is how it should be.

Phelps is not going to bring a top notch pitcher. There is no jay to be able to do that. If at all Vernon. O'Dog may bring a good prospect, and maybe Hinske. Pistol: Reed was not found by JP, he was called up, he has been in our system since day one putting good numbers up...

But if he's the key to acquiring that kind of pitcher, then Toronto has plenty more where he came from, all two years or fewer away.

The Jays do have some very good hitting prospects but they don't have plenty of power hitting prospects. Gabe Gross only has 8 HR and is slugging under 500. He had only 10 last season. Rios has a career high 6 HR this year. His 521 SLG is built mostly on singles and doubles. It might turn into more power, but it might not. If and when his BA falls (like when he gets to the majors) his SLG will as well. JF Griffin has 13 HR but his SLG is under 500 at 470. He's more of a line drive hitter anyway. Simon Pond, for all of the high BA and OBP, is also more of a doubles hitter. Quiroz should be a power source but this is the first year he's been hitting well enough to be considered an asset.

As you all well know, nothing wrt prospects is guaranteed...none have had a full year of AAA yet and some haven't even had a full year at AA. I do see all of these guys developing more power but nothing close to Phelps territory. And if Delgado leaves as well, that's an even more vacuous Power Hole (I'm gonna trademark that) in the middle of the lineup.

Instead of trying too hard to explain myself , basically what I'm sayign is that Phelps shouldn't be an untouchable. He shouldn't be actively shopped, but if the Jays are challenging the Yanks or in the Wild Card spot in '05 or '06 (or even next year) come the trade deadline and Phelps is what it takes to seriously bolster the rotation, than do it.

Gitz, I'm curious about the circumstances surrounding Giambi's departure. My impression was that he was two faced about it, talking about how much he liked the team and playing with his brother, then running to the Yankees as fast as possible. With that impression, I relate him to Tracy McGrady, who tied the Raptor's hands by pretending there was a chance for them to re-sign him. Maybe the T-Mac situation was also a management spin to make the player the bad guy, but I really do think the Raptors would have traded him for something useful if they knew there was no chance of him sticking around.

But back to Giambi, I hold him in double-disdain, for the above and for being a Yankee. Does it strike anyone else as odd that so many players are so eager to take "the easy way out" and sign with the Yankees? Wouldn't it be infinitely more satisfying for Giambi to win the World Series as an A than as a Yankee? He came up as an A, he was there as they rose to power, he was the heart of the team... but he'd rather be just another imported star on the Yankees? Do he and other free agents really feel that it's just a fluke when a team other than the Yankees wins the World Series? Isn't there a much greater feeling of achievement winning with a team that has really had to earn their greatness?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the crowd who feels the Yankees win purely because of their money. That viewpoint is discredited by the Orioles, the Mets, the Rangers (MLB or NHL, your pick). The Yankees win because they are adept at translating their financial edge into a competitive edge, and take advantage of their rich history to market themselves as the team to play for. If the Maple Leafs weren't such bumbling clods they could do the same.

About Giambi, anybody else think Karim Garcia kinda looks like him? How about Pettite and Posada. On the topic of lookalike teammates, I always think Jeff Tam is Cliff Politte if I tune into a game and there's a closeup of his face.

Yankees payroll is about 70% higher that the #2 payroll in MLB. Thus there is no example to discredit the "Yankees money = wins" hypothesis, because there is no other team (in any North American sport) that has that kind of payroll edge.

I'm probably just piling on here, but to me, the whole concept of Kielty to first long term over Delgado/Phelps seems misplaced. Kielty has good value as an average to above average (offensively) outfielder. With a low to mid 800's OPS he becomes less valuable as a first baseman. With approximately 3 years of precedent to go by I don't see star level offensive production coming with him (I'm not trying to run him down I do think he is a good player). I agree with Robert. You want to be very careful about trading potential star offensive players. Particulary when your system is practically bereft of prospects at that position (outside of Ford-Griffin).

A good point Robert, but based entirely on this year, in which the Yankees are spending at a ridiculous rate even by their standards. In 2002 they were 16.2% ahead of the next team, in 2001 it was 0.2%, in 2000 it was 5.0%.

(Don't know why, but my 2002 source won't link properly: www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/2002mlbpayrolls.html)

A better illustration of my point: From 1997 to 1999 the Baltimore Orioles paid out more luxury tax than the Yankees. The Yankees won 308 regular season games in that time, taking home the hardware in '98 and '99, making the playoffs as the Wild Card team in '97. The Orioles won 255 games during that time, with a single winning season to show for it (Division title in '97).

A big part of the Yankees success is their money. But it's not the only part.

I wrote a little about Giambi before Da Box went from being a marginal cult to something of a minor cult, so I'll blabber again for the new members of the BB family who may have missed my "wisdom."

You were right, Jonny, to suggest that Giambi gave off the impression he wanted to stay. But it wasn't a vociferous impression; it was understated, partly because Giambi did not want to discuss his contract during the season but also partly because, as would be revealed, he did not want to stay with the club.

I am cursed to be a natural skeptic, which explains my reluctance to accept many aspects of sabermetrics while simultaneously questioning the "intelligence" of the "old school" baseball thinkers, yet even I was optimistic Jason wanted to stay around and be part of something that would, at the least, rival the Braves's present run. So when Giambi rejected the A's offer, one that would shackle the payroll for years to come, I could only conclude that Giambi did not, in fact, really want to stay, since surely he knew the A's couldn't really afford him at $15 million per year, let alone, say, $16 million. The no-trade clause was Giambi's excuse for parting ways, and he rode that hard in the media, accusing the A's of "dis-respecting" him, much like Mike Piazza did when the Dodgers offered to make him, at the time, the highest-paid player in baseball. One cannot knock Giambi for trying to make as much as he could -- this is, after all, one of the basic tenets of free-market thinking -- but on the other hand one cannot knock the A's for turning off the love faucet for Giambi. But dis-respect? That is ludicrous.

I honestly believe, however, as I say above, that the club never had any intention to sign him, nor did Jason himself ever want to sign. They knew Giambi wanted a no-trade clause, they knew their offer was not market value (at the time), and they must have known that Giambi wanted to play for the Yankees. And they also knew that their fans, already a thin base to begin with, would not tolerate it if they didn't even try to sign Giambi; there was a surprising lack of backlash when the A's dumped Mark McGwire to the Cardinals, but that is the result of Big Mac being an arrogant SOB -- at least as much as Bonds, and, for as much as I detest Bonds The Invidual, where were McGwire's critics? -- but this was a little different. Giambi was enthusiastic, popular, a "leader," and, of course, he had turned into, arguably, the best hitter in the American League. Needless to say, the A's felt they had to do something, to give off at least the appearance they wanted to sign Giambi. So they did. Once the offer was rejected, ostensibly because of the no-trade clause, everyone knew Giambi was gone. Then it was blame-game time: Giambi claimed it was their fault, while the A's then did their final PR stroke, offering the no-trade clause. By then, of course, it was too late. Giambi was too bitter at the A's, and the A's were too bitter at Giambi. Both sides deserve their share of culpability for an event where nobody, ironically, was to blame, because, as Jason himself said, he had always wanted to play for the Yankees. We can't blame a person for their dreams. We can question them, but we cannot blame them.

Still, this was hard for many A's fans to digest. Here was a team on the verge of embarking on a serious four-six year run which could include many World Series trips, but also a team that had massive payroll issues because of a tight-fisted owner, and here's this chump publicly bickering about a no-trade clause. Now, certainly, he had cause to worry about being dealt, since in 1997 the player he replaced, McGwire, was dispatched for three essentially useless players, as referenced above. But it is such a minor thing, and A's fans, at least the hardcore ones -- that is to say, all of them, since their numbers are so few -- saw right through Giambi. They hated him for leaving, none the least for his disingenousness, and I honestly don't blame them. Many of them would not welcome him back, despite the A's offensive woes this season.

As to the issue of Giambi taking the easy way out and signing with the Yankees, that is something I cannot necessarily disagree with. I do not believe that life's lessons are best learned through adversity, as some suggest, and I do not have an inherent problem with people taking the "easy way" out. If someone gets a job because of their father or because of their birthright, good for them. Would we be any different? Would I turn down a job with a major-league team if I got it, ostensibly, because of my father? Hell no! I certainly understand the romance behind the person who comes from nothing and who turns into a huge success story, be it the business person, the carpenter, the CEO, the artist, et al. Good for them, too. I have an enormous amount of respect for people who can look beyond their present situation (that is to say their seemingly gloomy outlook) and persist anyhow, despite tremendous odds against them. But does that mean that the person who grew up in opulent surroundings, goes to Harvard, gets his MBA from Wharton, and succeeds beyond most of our humble hopes derives any less satisfaction from their success? I don't believe it necessarily does. The most we can say is that it is a different kind of satisfaction. Would Giambi experience more satisfaction winning the championship with the Bronx Bombers than with the A's? While it is certainly possible Giambi could look back with a sort of vapid joy, there's no way for us to accuarately conclude that one form of success is better than the other; we can only claim how we assume we would feel.

The loose comparison I could make would be if I was a top-notch writer for a small-but-up-and-coming newspaper/magazine in the Bay Area and was offered the same job with the New York Times. Assuming the salaries are comparable, do I stay, strongly suspecting that I can be part of something special, or do I head for the high and secure drama of, arguably, the greatest newspaper in the West? If I took the job in New York, would I always wonder how I would have felt if I had stayed in the Bay Area? Or would I simply accept my decision as a natural condition of life -- i.e. that we always strive for more, seemingly, no matter how happy our present condition is? I say this is a loose comparison, because there are some important distinctions between that scenario and Giambi's, not the least of which is that Giambi is much better in his profession, relative to his competition, than I am to mine. Also, as a writer, I am always challenged to do something new, something different, something edgy. (This is miles from saying I achieve those stated goals, but I am keenly aware of them, and they propel the fiction I write and they used to propel the drivel I write for ESPN.com before I burned out somewhat.) Giambi would not be challenged to do better in New York; he was already at the top of his game. Therefore, I would view the move to New York as the more enduring challenge -- the chance to, for lack of better words, strut my stuff on the global stage -- rather than the other way around, which were Giambi's circumstances.

Personally, in the specific instance for Giambi, I would have stayed, not only because the A's were becoming something of a juggernaut on their own, but also because the San Francisco Bay Area is really a tremendous place to live, easily one of the best areas in the United States. Giambi went to school in California, he lived in California, he surely loved California. It seemed a no-brainer. But I can also see his desire to play for the Yankees, too. To play for the best, to be a part of the best. As I mention above, at some level we all want to experience what it feels like to belong to an organisation at the zenith of its powers.

Wow. That was a lot of text. Sorry, kids. I should hire an editor.

It's true that for awhile Baltimore was keeping up with the Yankees in the spending game. Baltimore also had a few seasons where they were quite competitive.

My basic point is that no one, over the long-term, can keep up with the Yankees in terms of spending. The Yankees may not ALWAYS spend the most, but they have been the richest franchise for quite some time, which means they'll always have more reserve money than their rivals (should they need it).

I believe this gives them a strategic edge, by making them the only team that doesn't have to operate within a budget. What I mean is that at any given time the MAXIMUM that the Yankees can spend far exceeds every other team's MAXIMUM, so whatever it takes to bring the likes of Mussina and Giambi on board, whatever it takes to lock up Bernie Williams and Jorge Posada, is what they will pay.

Don't you are apologize, Gitz. That was terrific.

My own views on Giambi: it was obvious in hindsight that he wanted to leave, but I was fooled at the time; personally I hate the Yankees, but they are the other greatest team in sports (Montreal Canadiens); Giambi's father was apparently a lifelong Yankee fan, and perhaps Giambi shared something of that; winning is fun, and it's quite sane to expect to do more of it in NY than in Oakland; and if you expect players to show the same loyalty to their team that fans do, you're in for a lifetime of disappointment.

No apologies necessary as far as I'm concerned, Gitz. Enjoyed every word. Thanks.

Well stated Robert, and when you put it that way I think we agree. Hopefully there are more Mondesis and Contreras' and Weavers in Steinbrenner's near future. I don't see any Sorianos or Jeters or Williams' coming along, so I'm holding out hope that the evil empire might crumble.

Rumoured trade between A's and Jays,Escobar for Ted Lilly and Joe Blanton(?) according to Gammons to be announced to-morrow,does this sound reasonable?

I don't think it sounds reasonable. Do the A's really need Escobar? Still, the A's are very unpredictable.

One trade that did get made, just now, is Sauerbeck to the Bosox for Brandon Lyon and two minor leaguers.

http://economics.about.com
I think that'd be a great deal for the Jays. Lilly still may turn out to be useful (though he's at about replacement level right now) and Blanton, a RHP, was a first round pick last year.

See this article by Bill Mitchell.

It'd be a great trade for the Jays if they could pull it off.

Any thoughts on today's Pirates - Red Sox trade? The Sox must think Lyon has been a flash in the pan because Sauerbeck hasn't exactly been terrific this year for the Bucs. Anyone know anything about the prospects involved?

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Slight correction Craig: They swapped minor leaguers.

Yeah, that's better. Boston gets lefty closer Mike Gonzalez who's been mostly hurt since the Arizona Fall League, Pirates get AA closer Anastacio Martinez (2.25 ERA, 24/37 BB/K in 40 IP).

1. Blanton -- 2.71 ERA with 130/18 (!) K/BB ration in 126 IP in Midwest League. A little less impressive for his age (23?) in that league, but still...

2. Kielty at 1B would be a big mistake, IMO. Not enough bat.

3. Is it really a complete rebuttal of the 'money leads to winning' argument that you can find one or two inept teams that spend almost as much money and still lose? It doesn't seem so, to me. Those late 90s O's and Dodgers, for example, spent tons of money AND were completely inept. Doesn't tell me that if you spend tons of money and are at least moderately effective in the front office that you won't win. And a lot of that salary was going to guys who weren't on the field, like Albert Belle and Darren Dreifort, so maybe it was just bad luck.

Anyway, to say that it's not JUST about the money with the Yankees is a bit like saying it's not JUST about the size of the engine in a V-12 Ferrarri because it also has good aerodynamics.

4. Yeah, I'd guess that Giambi would feel less satisfaction winning in NY in the same way that I believe kids appreciate their things more if they've had to earn the money to buy them rather than have me give it to them. But again, maybe he wants to make sure he gets it, whether bought or earned.

I heard Gammons talking about Lilly/Blanton for Escobar. According to Gammons, since the A's are having a hard time getting a bat they're just going to try to keep everyone off the scoreboard.

Blanton was a first round pick out of Kentucky last year, in the early 20s. Sickels had him as a B- prospect and liked him, but said he didn't have as much polish as the notable A's college pitchers (then again, who is?).

In the Midwest league (I think that's low A) he has a 2.71 ERA in 126 innings with 130 Ks, 18 BBs, and 6 HRs.

Makes me wonder why he hasn't been promoted yet.

The biggest knock on Blanton is his rather awkward delivery, and somes scouts feel that could lead to future arm injuries, so it may just be that he's still in Low-A working on a ironing out his pitching mechanics.

Bobby Kielty, First Baseman?

No.